December 2006
Noam Chomsky, a scientist who revolutionized the study of linguistics, takes the position that there is no credible evidence that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" and that 9/11 truth activists are draining energy from the serious left-wing.
This closely parallels statements he made in 1993 about the JFK assassination, a time when the CIA was balking at obeying a law requiring it to declassify and release documents concerning that slaying.
In October 2006, Chomsky said he was "not persuaded that much documentation and other evidence" of government coverup concerning 9/11 had been uncovered.
"To determine that," he said, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have requisite backgrounds in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis;
[perhaps he overlooked physicists]
and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet
[unless one goes to the NIST web site].
In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers
[who were "absorbed" by the feds and did not publish their own study].
Or take a course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission."
[Yet, the state uses the mass media as a propaganda arm, the scientist has said. However, apparently peer-reviewed media are exempt from clandestine pressure tactics.]
Chomsky continued, "One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away away from real, ongoing crimes of the state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up a world trade center would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis."
[So, Chomsky knows there is no credibility here. Does this mean he is an expert on the facts of 9/11 and has done adequate research? Or, is this an uninformed opinion?]
He said that "the 9/11 movement has been treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work."
[Is he saying the centers of power have been giving him a very, very bad time?, that he hasn't been treated tolerantly?]
In 2005, Chomsky said that "I think the Bush administration would have to have been utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests" and argued that serious evidence had not been provided to support the "outlandish" claims about an event that has "no remote historical parallel."
[Reichstag fire?]
In 1993, the scientist also said conspiracy theorists were damaging left-wing interests.
"Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination
[ignited by the Oliver Stone film "JFK" and the furor over release of intelligence records concerning the murder]
"I mean, I don't know who assassinated him and I don't care, but what difference does it make? It's not an issue of any general public interest. And there's a huge amount of energy and effort going into that. If somebody could show there was some general significance to the assassination, that it changed policy, or that there was some high-level involvement or whatever, then it would be an important historical event."
Otherwise, the slaying was an insignificant event, like a murder in Hoboken, Chomsky said.
[The scientist doesn't know who killed JFK, but finds that the evidence points to a random criminal event. He's fairly sure there was no conspiracy because, he says, no policy changed. So high-level involvement hasn't been shown. This is somewhat akin to vouching for the Warren commission report based on the, essentially unproved, notion that there was no real change in the power structure.]
Chomsky's JFK remarks are found here.
Physicists lead challenge to 9/11 tale
December 16, 2006
Here are a few of the physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists and engineers who have gone on record as challenging the official account of the collapses of the twin towers in New York on 9/11:
His qualifications appear here:
https://stevenejones.org/c-v/
Rankin is an astrophysicist now retired from the University of Vermont. She had pressed for a re-opening of the 9/11 investigation.
Her qualifications appear here:
https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/cv_jrankin_2010.pdf
Grabbe is an expert on space weaponry and former professor at the University of Iowa.
His qualifications appear here
http://www.sealane.org/vita/consultvita.html
Jenkins is an atmospheric scientist at Penn State.
http://www.met.psu.edu/people/gsj1
Previously, he was an assistant director of Howard University's department of physics and astronomy and has been associated with NASA.
Mitteldorf has taught math and physics at Ivy League schools and is currently concentrating on biological science. He was one of a group of statisticians, many affiliated with universities, who found that the nationwide exit poll discrepancies in the 2004 presidential election were highly improbable.
Mitteldorf's background appears here:
https://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.joshua.mitteldorf
Working with Mitteldorf on ballot security issues was Griscom, a retired naval research physicist with more than 200 publications to his credit.
Griscom is retired from the Naval Research Laboratory.
http://www.davidgriscom.com/
Control f "publications" for his extensive list of scientific publications
Legge is a retired Australian biochemist who regards his 9/11 analyses as his most important work.
His sites:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank-Legge
https://scienceof911.com.au/
Costello is an Australian physicist.
His publications are listed here:
http://johncostella.com/physics/
Grimmer is a retired physicist who taught at universities and worked for a national laboratory (which he does not identify).
https://scientistsfor911truth.com/derrick-p-grimmer
Dewdney's detailed professional qualifications appear here:
https://www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/PERSONAL/hp.html
Margulis, who died in 2011, was a world-famous biologist who promoted the symbiosis theory of evolution as a major supplement to the "survival of the fittest" paradigm.
Her qualifications appear here:
http://hummingbirdfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Margulis-CV-2011.pdf
and her awards and recognitions here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis#Awards_and_recognitions
Fetzer is a retired philosophy of science professor at the University of Minnesota. His professional qualifications are here:
https://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/completecv.html
Fetzer is editor of the book The 9/11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America (Open Court 2007), a collection of essays condemning government claims about the attacks. Open Court is a well-known publisher of books on philosophy.
Among his other books are
Fetzer and a co-author, Mike Palecek, a former newspaperman, were slapped with a $450,000 slander judgment in favor of Leonard Pozner, father of Noah Pozner, age 6, who police said was among 27 shooting death victims at the Sandy Hook grade school in Newtown, Ct., Dec. 14, 2012. A 2016 book by Fetzer and Palacek, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, It Was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control asserted that Pozner had circulated a copy of a certificate that fraudulently claimed that Noah had been slain that day. Fetzer asserted that the whole "massacre" was staged in order to drum up public support for gun control.
Fetzer had the unenviable task of attempting to prove that the death certificate was part of a charade, which put him at a big disadvantage in court.
Despite Fetzer's loss in court however there remain a number of substantial unresolved questions concerning the events of that day. I have noticed that important technical observations have been taken offline, whether in fear of lawsuits or for other reasons.
Others with scientific backgrounds [this list compiled in 2006] who oppose the official story are Timothy P. Howell, PhD, computer science, and Peter Phillips, PhD, a sociology professor and director of Project Censored at Sonoma State University. Howell is cited as having a PhD from the University of Edinburgh and residing in Sweden, but references are scanty. Charles Simpson, PhD, chairman of the department of sociology and criminal justice at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, has joined Rankin in a petition to have Burlington urge a new investigation of 9/11.
Also, Robert S. Boyer, a professor of mathematical philosophy [logic] and computer science at the University of Texas, and Joseph Phelps, who is a charter member of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Also, Hugo Bachman and Jorg Schneider, two former structural engineering professors at Zurich's Federal Institute of Technology, have said the towers appeared to have been brought down by controlled demolition.
Other academics have also challenged the official story, but their degrees are not in mathematical sciences.
I have not checked the authenticity of every PhD claim, but there is no obvious reason to doubt any.
Noam Chomsky, a scientist who revolutionized the study of linguistics, takes the position that there is no credible evidence that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" and that 9/11 truth activists are draining energy from the serious left-wing.
This closely parallels statements he made in 1993 about the JFK assassination, a time when the CIA was balking at obeying a law requiring it to declassify and release documents concerning that slaying.
In October 2006, Chomsky said he was "not persuaded that much documentation and other evidence" of government coverup concerning 9/11 had been uncovered.
"To determine that," he said, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have requisite backgrounds in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis;
[perhaps he overlooked physicists]
and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet
[unless one goes to the NIST web site].
In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers
[who were "absorbed" by the feds and did not publish their own study].
Or take a course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission."
[Yet, the state uses the mass media as a propaganda arm, the scientist has said. However, apparently peer-reviewed media are exempt from clandestine pressure tactics.]
Chomsky continued, "One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away away from real, ongoing crimes of the state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up a world trade center would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis."
[So, Chomsky knows there is no credibility here. Does this mean he is an expert on the facts of 9/11 and has done adequate research? Or, is this an uninformed opinion?]
He said that "the 9/11 movement has been treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work."
[Is he saying the centers of power have been giving him a very, very bad time?, that he hasn't been treated tolerantly?]
In 2005, Chomsky said that "I think the Bush administration would have to have been utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests" and argued that serious evidence had not been provided to support the "outlandish" claims about an event that has "no remote historical parallel."
[Reichstag fire?]
In 1993, the scientist also said conspiracy theorists were damaging left-wing interests.
"Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination
[ignited by the Oliver Stone film "JFK" and the furor over release of intelligence records concerning the murder]
"I mean, I don't know who assassinated him and I don't care, but what difference does it make? It's not an issue of any general public interest. And there's a huge amount of energy and effort going into that. If somebody could show there was some general significance to the assassination, that it changed policy, or that there was some high-level involvement or whatever, then it would be an important historical event."
Otherwise, the slaying was an insignificant event, like a murder in Hoboken, Chomsky said.
[The scientist doesn't know who killed JFK, but finds that the evidence points to a random criminal event. He's fairly sure there was no conspiracy because, he says, no policy changed. So high-level involvement hasn't been shown. This is somewhat akin to vouching for the Warren commission report based on the, essentially unproved, notion that there was no real change in the power structure.]
Chomsky's JFK remarks are found here.
Physicists lead challenge to 9/11 tale
December 16, 2006
Here are a few of the physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists and engineers who have gone on record as challenging the official account of the collapses of the twin towers in New York on 9/11:
Steven E. Jones, PhD Joanna Rankin, PhD Crockett L. Grabbe, PhD Gregory S. Jenkins, PhD Josh Mitteldorf, PhD; David Griscom, PhD Frank Legge, PhD John P. Costella, PhD Derrick P. Grimmer, PhD A.K. Dewdney, PhD Lynn Margulis, PhD James E. FetzerJones was a physics professor who was pressured to retire from Brigham Young University in a controversy over his online paper attacking the official theory of the collapses.
His qualifications appear here:
https://stevenejones.org/c-v/
Rankin is an astrophysicist now retired from the University of Vermont. She had pressed for a re-opening of the 9/11 investigation.
Her qualifications appear here:
https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/cv_jrankin_2010.pdf
Grabbe is an expert on space weaponry and former professor at the University of Iowa.
His qualifications appear here
http://www.sealane.org/vita/consultvita.html
Jenkins is an atmospheric scientist at Penn State.
http://www.met.psu.edu/people/gsj1
Previously, he was an assistant director of Howard University's department of physics and astronomy and has been associated with NASA.
Mitteldorf has taught math and physics at Ivy League schools and is currently concentrating on biological science. He was one of a group of statisticians, many affiliated with universities, who found that the nationwide exit poll discrepancies in the 2004 presidential election were highly improbable.
Mitteldorf's background appears here:
https://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.joshua.mitteldorf
Working with Mitteldorf on ballot security issues was Griscom, a retired naval research physicist with more than 200 publications to his credit.
Griscom is retired from the Naval Research Laboratory.
http://www.davidgriscom.com/
Control f "publications" for his extensive list of scientific publications
Legge is a retired Australian biochemist who regards his 9/11 analyses as his most important work.
His sites:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank-Legge
https://scienceof911.com.au/
Costello is an Australian physicist.
His publications are listed here:
http://johncostella.com/physics/
Grimmer is a retired physicist who taught at universities and worked for a national laboratory (which he does not identify).
https://scientistsfor911truth.com/derrick-p-grimmer
Dewdney's detailed professional qualifications appear here:
https://www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/PERSONAL/hp.html
Margulis, who died in 2011, was a world-famous biologist who promoted the symbiosis theory of evolution as a major supplement to the "survival of the fittest" paradigm.
Her qualifications appear here:
http://hummingbirdfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Margulis-CV-2011.pdf
and her awards and recognitions here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis#Awards_and_recognitions
Fetzer is a retired philosophy of science professor at the University of Minnesota. His professional qualifications are here:
https://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/completecv.html
Fetzer is editor of the book The 9/11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America (Open Court 2007), a collection of essays condemning government claims about the attacks. Open Court is a well-known publisher of books on philosophy.
Among his other books are
- Scientific Knowledge: Causation, Explanation, and Corroboration (D. Reidel 1981) Artificial Intelligence: Its Scope and Limits (Kluwer Academic 1990)
- Philosophy and Cognitive Science (Paragon House 1991)
- Philosophy of Science (Paragon House 1993)
- Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are Not Machines (Kluwer Academic 2001)
- The Evolution of Intelligence: Are Humans the Only Animals with Minds? (Open Court 2005)
Fetzer and a co-author, Mike Palecek, a former newspaperman, were slapped with a $450,000 slander judgment in favor of Leonard Pozner, father of Noah Pozner, age 6, who police said was among 27 shooting death victims at the Sandy Hook grade school in Newtown, Ct., Dec. 14, 2012. A 2016 book by Fetzer and Palacek, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, It Was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control asserted that Pozner had circulated a copy of a certificate that fraudulently claimed that Noah had been slain that day. Fetzer asserted that the whole "massacre" was staged in order to drum up public support for gun control.
Fetzer had the unenviable task of attempting to prove that the death certificate was part of a charade, which put him at a big disadvantage in court.
Despite Fetzer's loss in court however there remain a number of substantial unresolved questions concerning the events of that day. I have noticed that important technical observations have been taken offline, whether in fear of lawsuits or for other reasons.
Others with scientific backgrounds [this list compiled in 2006] who oppose the official story are Timothy P. Howell, PhD, computer science, and Peter Phillips, PhD, a sociology professor and director of Project Censored at Sonoma State University. Howell is cited as having a PhD from the University of Edinburgh and residing in Sweden, but references are scanty. Charles Simpson, PhD, chairman of the department of sociology and criminal justice at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, has joined Rankin in a petition to have Burlington urge a new investigation of 9/11.
Also, Robert S. Boyer, a professor of mathematical philosophy [logic] and computer science at the University of Texas, and Joseph Phelps, who is a charter member of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Also, Hugo Bachman and Jorg Schneider, two former structural engineering professors at Zurich's Federal Institute of Technology, have said the towers appeared to have been brought down by controlled demolition.
Other academics have also challenged the official story, but their degrees are not in mathematical sciences.
I have not checked the authenticity of every PhD claim, but there is no obvious reason to doubt any.
No comments:
Post a Comment